To phrase that more scientifically, evolution has had billions of years of trial and error to produce species that are well adapted chemically and physically. Many human researchers want to imitate that adaptation, turning lessons from the natural world into practice in engineering, technology, and architecture. The entire venture goes under the name “biomimicry.”

Further Reading

“I think biomimicry is really beautiful,” says Ariel Ekblaw, a student at MIT’s Media Lab, who founded and leads the Media Lab’s Space Exploration Initiative. “It’s both a framework and... a set of tools or learnings from nature that can inform modern engineering and science research projects.”

To see the spectrum of biomimicry research, I attended a three-day workshop called “Nature-Inspired Exploration for Aerospace.” The workshop was cosponsored by NASA’s Glenn Research Center, the Ohio Aerospace Institute, and Great Lakes Biomimicry. Despite the aerospace focus, the program ranged from straight-up biology to philosophical queries about the reasons for doing biomimicry in the first place.

Sticking to nature for innovation

The classic example of biomimicry is Velcro®. In 1941, Swiss engineer George de Mestral drew inspiration from burrs sticking to his dog’s fur to create the now-familiar fastening system based on tiny hooks and loops.

But Velcro® seems primitive compared with modern biomimicry projects. Researchers look at whale flippers to improve wind-turbine designs, common reeds (Phragmites australis) to muffle sounds from airports, and sidewinding snakes to build robots that can climb difficult slopes. Others study organisms living in extreme environments—high-elevation deserts, deep-sea volcanic vents, Antarctica—to help understand how humans might live in resource-scarce places, whether on Earth, the Moon, or Mars.

The core goal of the NASA biomimicry workshop was drawing together people from many disciplines in hopes of fostering collaborations with NASA for the future of aerospace technology. Many NASA researchers are interested in biomimicry because it promises pure efficiency, a must given the high cost of transporting materials into space. But there’s also the prospect of eliminating the need to transport things entirely. Organisms build themselves from the available raw materials of their environment, in the form of food (however defined) and environmental sources of water.

For instance, if a Mars habitat could be built—or assemble itself from modular components—using materials obtained on Mars itself, it would potentially save a vast amount of mass during launch from Earth. That, in turn, translates into fuel savings, possibly allowing for the spacecraft to carry other important cargo.

Enlarge/ Growing food and creating a livable environment are two engineering challenges on Mars that are just as important as making fuel. Real-world solutions will, sadly, probably differ a bit from The Martian's depiction.

The Martian

Green concepts

“Biomimicry itself is not exactly a new concept; it’s actually quite old,” says Teresa McNulty, who studies at the Biomimicry Center of Arizona State University. “[Ancient civilizations] would record what they observe in nature and then use that in some ways to inform better designs and new technologies.”

Modern biomimicry research takes these old ideas and applies them in systematic ways. The field is intrinsically interdisciplinary, bringing in biologists, roboticists, materials scientists, and engineers of all flavors. Talking with biomimicry researchers, it’s not unusual to find people with multiple degrees in seemingly unrelated fields—like engineers who now study moth wings or do fieldwork in South America.

McNulty, for instance, worked in metallurgy and materials science previously. Her interest in biomimicry largely flows from a strong interest in sustainability.

“Nature elegantly uses a small subset of materials on the periodic table of elements and actually is able to manufacture materials with ambient temperatures,” she says.

In other words, without the ability to drastically alter the temperature or chemistry of their environment the way humans do, organisms grow, consume, and reproduce using the resources and conditions they have available. By contrast, human manufacturing in industrialized nations often relies on high temperatures, inefficient water usage, and materials that are difficult to extract or recycle (such as the rare earth elements essential to electronics). Yet without the ability to drastically alter the temperature or chemistry of their environment the way humans do, organisms grow, consume, and reproduce using the resources they have available.

That doesn’t necessarily mean “nature” (loosely defined) has the best or most efficient ways of doing things or that biomimicry is the only way to improve things like resource extraction and engineering. Rather, we can analyze the known successes of evolution and use them as a model for improving current practice. It’s a theme that came through again and again during the Nature-Inspired Exploration for Aerospace workshop.

“One thing that I’m really attracted to about biomimicry is that sustainability is kind of built-in at the core,” says McNulty. That includes eliminating or minimizing non-recyclable waste. After all, very few waste products of organisms aren’t usable by some other organism. “I really hope that by leveraging biomimicry on a system level, you can also get a more sustainable system of materials from cradle-to-grave, in which case ‘grave’ doesn’t really exist anymore.”

Enlarge/ The axolotl, a salamander capable of regenerating lost limbs, was among the creatures on display at an American Museum of Natural History exhibit on extremophiles in recent years.

AMNH

Extreme life, extreme engineering

Efficiency of resource use is more than a green design choice for space exploration: it’s an absolute necessity. Any material that can’t be recycled or repurposed is a waste of space and mass; wasted resources or hazardous end-products could be dangerous or fatal to astronauts. Potential crewed Mars missions are on many biomimicry researchers’ minds for that reason.

Even a short-duration Mars trip is measured in months. The longer the stay, the harder the problems of living there become.

To think about those problems, biomimicry researchers look to “extremophiles,” organisms that live in the harshest conditions on Earth (by human standards, at least). Mars is a simultaneously cold, dry, chemically hostile, and high-radiation environment. As a result, many space-oriented biomimicry researchers look at how desert plants extract and purify water for their use, how fungi thrive in high-radiation environments, how proteins enable insects to fold large structures like wings inside small pupae during metamorphosis, and so much more. In the words of Terry Pratchett, “life lives everywhere that life can. Where life can’t, this takes a little longer.”

Claudia Rivera of the National Autonomous University of Mexico spoke at the conference about the “genius of place,” or how organisms adapt to the specific conditions in a location. Her example was the Atacama Desert of Chile, which is a rich and complicated ecosystem despite being at very high elevation and the driest desert outside of Antarctica. (The Atacama may not have received any measurable rainfall between 1570 and 1971; even today, accumulated rainfall is measured in millimeters.) Scientists estimate the desert may have been arid for 3 million years or more, meaning life has had plenty of time to adapt to its conditions.

Further Reading

Rivera cited llareta, an Atacama plant that tolerates extreme lack of moisture, high winds (both hot and cold), and intense sunshine. From the outside, llareta looks much like a mossy boulder or a flat mat of moss; inside, it’s a dense tangle of branches. This structure minimizes wind drag, but it also locks moisture in and limits evaporation. Llareta also produces resins to help the plant resist freezing.

Since the Atacama’s soils are full of salt and alkaline chemicals, the available water is toxic to many organisms (including humans). Additionally, that water is often in the form of a relatively small number of molecules clinging to soil particles, rather than the more saturated soils of wetter places. Desert plants extract salts from the soil and excrete them on their leaves, or they filter out chemicals that would be otherwise toxic to them.

Yet the plants still extract enough to live on. To put it another way: when water is scarce, organisms can’t afford metaphorically to turn their noses up at stuff that’s hard to get or tastes bad.

As a number of robotic probes have shown, subsurface water on Mars is plentiful, especially at high latitudes. However, it’s generally frozen and mixed with perchlorate salts, sulfates, and other chemicals nasty to human explorers—much as the water in the Atacama Desert is toxic and difficult to obtain.

Whether drinking it, using it to grow food, or processing it into a component of fuel to return to Earth (a distinct possibility, since transporting enough extra fuel to get home will be very expensive), it’s obvious humans will need to use Martian water, no matter how toxic it is.

Other extreme organisms could also help show the way. Many species of bacteria have membranes that permit water but reject toxic chemicals. Plants like the sacred lotus have water-impermeable leaves, which allow them to separate water from dirt using gravity alone. As Andrew Trunek of NASA said in his conference talk, everything astronauts on Mars need to do to get water, organisms have evolved to do without using a nuclear power plant. If we can learn to do the same, humans will have a much easier time on the Red Planet.

Self-assembling space stations

MIT’s Ekblaw identifies two major approaches to biomimicry research: problem-driven, which often attracts the engineers, and curiosity-driven, which is a draw for the pure scientists.

“I’m primarily problem-driven in that I’m an aerospace structures researcher looking at a scalable, low-energy, efficient way to assemble architecture in zero-gravity environments,” she says. “The current model of the International Space Station is very complicated, very energy expensive, [and] very risky in terms of human life to assemble. How can we look to nature for a pattern of self-assembly—an elegant, simpler, efficient way to bring pieces together?”

Ekblaw envisions a space station module that assembles like a three-dimensional puzzle. The instructions for assembly are all encoded as part of the puzzle pieces, rather than requiring robotic or human intervention to put the module together. Organisms do this self-assembly trick on multiple levels: proteins form networks; colonial amoebas group together into a slug-like aggregate that crawls; ants collectively make a bridge across gaps. The assembly doesn’t need intelligence—just simple chemical or electric communication among its components.

Engineering self-assembly in which the dimensions are measured in centimeters or meters is more challenging. That’s because there are potentially many more possible configurations for the pieces to come together. (As Ekblaw points out, if the most desirable configuration from an energy point of view is the pieces lying in opposite corners, you’ve got a problem.)

“How can you embed elements of that final logic into each individual unit so that they come together in an efficient way?” Ekblaw says. “The way I do that in my system is through magnets, the geometry of the beveling, [and] a few other proposals.” The latter includes “biasing,” or using an air blower or some other mechanism to help guide the pieces toward each other.

he classic example of biomimicry is Velcro®. In 1941, Swiss engineer George de Mestral drew inspiration from burrs sticking to his dog’s fur to create the now-familiar fastening system based on tiny hooks and loops.

Come back in a million years - no, say ten thousand years - or then again maybe just a one thousand years. I think Life will be on Mars irrespective of whether it is there now or not.

Life finds a way? I think WE are the way.

I reckon it's only a matter of time now, now that we have reached Mars, albeit so far only by proxy.

One scenario has already been expressed in the movie 'The Martian' when his biosphere blew a gasket. That had to have contaminated that version of Mars. There will be other reasons too, commercial reasons probably. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at Antartica now.

What if one could look at Mars again in a million years from now. What would one find?

I think there could be little evidence left that Mars was once considered to be sterile. Even the slightest error here (in the past or future) or on Mars (in my future) could seed Mars. There is no control over random accident. One may mitigate against it but not prevent it. I wonder if that is how life originated - simply by accident somewhere?

Of course this speculation depends on first someone not destroying one or more of the artificial satellites up there, preventing us making further forays into space due to orbital debris. On the other hand, even that may not be forever. https://www.nap.edu/read/4765/chapter/11

What we need to do bio engineer organisms that thrive on Mars (or under subsurface), feed on it's natural resource, and excrete beneficial materials for us Humans to exploit. Of course, no doubt we Humans will also be bio-engineered and altered to best suit a Martian environment.

Come back in a million years - no, say ten thousand years - or then again maybe just a one thousand years. I think Life will be on Mars irrespective of whether it is there now or not.

Life finds a way? I think WE are the way.

I reckon it's only a matter of time now, now that we have reached Mars, albeit so far only by proxy.

One scenario has already been expressed in the movie 'The Martian' when his biosphere blew a gasket. That had to have contaminated that version of Mars. There will be other reasons too, commercial reasons probably. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at Antartica now.

What if one could look at Mars again in a million years from now. What would one find?

I think there could be little evidence left that Mars was once considered to be sterile. Even the slightest error here (in the past or future) or on Mars (in my future) could seed Mars. There is no control over random accident. One may mitigate against it but not prevent it. I wonder if that is how life originated - simply by accident somewhere?

Of course this speculation depends on first someone not destroying one or more of the artificial satellites up there, preventing us making further forays into space due to orbital debris. On the other hand, even that may not be forever. https://www.nap.edu/read/4765/chapter/11

It’s way too popular a concept to believe that there was once life on Mars. It’s also too popular to think that living on Mars is practical. As far as it being seeded - with what? Mars is a very harsh environment. If life could exist on Mars, it would be there now.

What we often forget is that the extremophiles had millions of years to adapt from much more friendly environments. Maybe tens of millions. If the environment wasn’t that friendly to begin with, it’s far less likely that life got started at all. By now, it looks that any chance for that is long gone.

These discussions are fun, but it's really wasted energy. I've watched three generations of "visionaries" enter this field wide-eyed and excited only to have their dreams crushed by reality. Mars is too far a stretch goal.First, let's develop a "colony" on Antarctica that is self-sustainable. If you can't pull that off on a continent that's already providing 2 of 3 vital resources (oxygen and water) you have no chance of pulling off it on Mars or any other body of this solar system.Enjoy the ride while it lasts, Ariel.

These discussions are fun, but it's really wasted energy. I've watched three generations of "visionaries" enter this field wide-eyed and excited only to have their dreams crushed by reality. Mars is too far a stretch goal.First, let's develop a "colony" on Antarctica that is self-sustainable. If you can't pull that off on a continent that's already providing 2 of 3 vital resources (oxygen and water) you have no chance of pulling off it on Mars or any other body of this solar system.Enjoy the ride while it lasts, Ariel.

Well, the "reality" boils down to money never spent on space colonies/bases - usually because there was a war or two around. It was never strictly technical and it's much less so now.

Also, the reason we don't have a self sustainable base on Antarctica is because we never actually tried. If we were serious about it and had spent some bucks on it, we would have it.

Last, it was the "visionaries" as you call them that created the space programs, at a time when most "grounded" folks were busy proving that they were impossible.

Come back in a million years - no, say ten thousand years - or then again maybe just a one thousand years. I think Life will be on Mars irrespective of whether it is there now or not.

Life finds a way? I think WE are the way.

I reckon it's only a matter of time now, now that we have reached Mars, albeit so far only by proxy.

One scenario has already been expressed in the movie 'The Martian' when his biosphere blew a gasket. That had to have contaminated that version of Mars. There will be other reasons too, commercial reasons probably. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at Antartica now.

What if one could look at Mars again in a million years from now. What would one find?

I think there could be little evidence left that Mars was once considered to be sterile. Even the slightest error here (in the past or future) or on Mars (in my future) could seed Mars. There is no control over random accident. One may mitigate against it but not prevent it. I wonder if that is how life originated - simply by accident somewhere?

Of course this speculation depends on first someone not destroying one or more of the artificial satellites up there, preventing us making further forays into space due to orbital debris. On the other hand, even that may not be forever. https://www.nap.edu/read/4765/chapter/11

It’s way too popular a concept to believe that there was once life on Mars. It’s also too popular to think that living on Mars is practical. As far as it being seeded - with what? Mars is a very harsh environment. If life could exist on Mars, it would be there now.

What we often forget is that the extremophiles had millions of years to adapt from much more friendly environments. Maybe tens of millions. If the environment wasn’t that friendly to begin with, it’s far less likely that life got started at all. By now, it looks that any chance for that is long gone.

Also, life on Mars may be there or at least might have been there once and then died out. We don't really know and that's a fairly good reason to go and find out. Even finding out why there wasn't life on Mars would be important.

The term of biomimicry was introduced in the late 90’s by Janine Benyus and described in her book as a “new science that studies nature’s models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems”. The main idea that differentiates biomimicry from any other bio-inspiration concepts, according to Benuys is the notion of sustainability.

Quote:

For example, EEL Energy a Paris Region SME has developed a marine current power system that imitates the waving of pelagic species (underwater organisms): they use a vibrating membrane that captures the mechanical energy from the waving and transforms it into electricity.

There are many other examples like artificial photosynthesis, butterflies wings reflection, mushrooms as a soil cleaner… The main idea is not to consume natural resources, but observe, learn and study micro or macro organisms in order to innovate responsibly and sustainably.

5. ConclusionsWe find that transfer of rock capable of carrying life has likely occurred from both Earth and Mars to all the terrestrial planets in the Solar System and Jupiter, and transfer from Earth to Saturn is also probable. Additionally, we find smaller but significant probabilities of transfer to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn from Earth and to the moons of Jupiter from Mars. These estimates are dependent on the number of rocks assumed ejected from the planets of origin. Our results indicate that transfer of life to these moons cannot be ruled out, and searches for life on these objects should keep in mind the necessity of determining whether life arose independently or descended from common ancestors to Earth life. Any life found there cannot be assumed to be of independent origin.

These discussions are fun, but it's really wasted energy. I've watched three generations of "visionaries" enter this field wide-eyed and excited only to have their dreams crushed by reality. Mars is too far a stretch goal.First, let's develop a "colony" on Antarctica that is self-sustainable. If you can't pull that off on a continent that's already providing 2 of 3 vital resources (oxygen and water) you have no chance of pulling off it on Mars or any other body of this solar system.Enjoy the ride while it lasts, Ariel.

There's no need for a colony on Antarctica to be self-sustaining. We certainly have the technology. Although one thing Antarctica has that no other place* in the Solar System this side of Uranus has: six months without sunlight.

* edited to add, per leet below: except the North Pole and (almost) Mercury.

Come back in a million years - no, say ten thousand years - or then again maybe just a one thousand years. I think Life will be on Mars irrespective of whether it is there now or not.

Life finds a way? I think WE are the way.

I reckon it's only a matter of time now, now that we have reached Mars, albeit so far only by proxy.

One scenario has already been expressed in the movie 'The Martian' when his biosphere blew a gasket. That had to have contaminated that version of Mars. There will be other reasons too, commercial reasons probably. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at Antartica now.

What if one could look at Mars again in a million years from now. What would one find?

I think there could be little evidence left that Mars was once considered to be sterile. Even the slightest error here (in the past or future) or on Mars (in my future) could seed Mars. There is no control over random accident. One may mitigate against it but not prevent it. I wonder if that is how life originated - simply by accident somewhere?

Of course this speculation depends on first someone not destroying one or more of the artificial satellites up there, preventing us making further forays into space due to orbital debris. On the other hand, even that may not be forever. https://www.nap.edu/read/4765/chapter/11

It is mathematically impossible for molecules to perfectly align themselves to create self-spawning life. That is like saying an explosion will create a book in legible sentences, which is even much simpler than life itself. Kind of like how thousands and thousands of "perfect" mistakes to build every single function of life (blood cells, the heart, the brain, how white blood cells replicate and attack - and only foreign bodies, etc etc). I haven't seen any concrete evidence of this in action. Can anyone prove it observably?

Mathematics has nothing to do with it. Molecules perfectly align themselves all the time -- look at crystals. All you need is a particular crystalline arrangement (the tiny mica-like crystals in various clays work just fine) for the organic molecules to line up on, add heat and time, and away you go.

The term of biomimicry was introduced in the late 90’s by Janine Benyus and described in her book as a “new science that studies nature’s models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems”. The main idea that differentiates biomimicry from any other bio-inspiration concepts, according to Benuys is the notion of sustainability.

Quote:

For example, EEL Energy a Paris Region SME has developed a marine current power system that imitates the waving of pelagic species (underwater organisms): they use a vibrating membrane that captures the mechanical energy from the waving and transforms it into electricity.

There are many other examples like artificial photosynthesis, butterflies wings reflection, mushrooms as a soil cleaner… The main idea is not to consume natural resources, but observe, learn and study micro or macro organisms in order to innovate responsibly and sustainably.

Seems to me that Benuys added "sustainability" to justify coining a new word. The rest of it fits just fine within bionics or biomimetics.

But I'll confess to a personal interest in the matter. Jack Steele, the man who coined the term bionics, was my father-in-law. He was always a little disappointed that the usage of the term was warped by The Six Million Dollar Man, although it cheered him when kids with prosthetics would brag about their "bionics".

These discussions are fun, but it's really wasted energy. I've watched three generations of "visionaries" enter this field wide-eyed and excited only to have their dreams crushed by reality. Mars is too far a stretch goal.First, let's develop a "colony" on Antarctica that is self-sustainable. If you can't pull that off on a continent that's already providing 2 of 3 vital resources (oxygen and water) you have no chance of pulling off it on Mars or any other body of this solar system.Enjoy the ride while it lasts, Ariel.

There's no need for a colony on Antarctica to be self-sustaining. We certainly have the technology. Although one thing Antarctica has that no other place in the Solar System this side of Uranus has: six months without sunlight.

"In other words, without the ability to drastically alter the temperature or chemistry of their environment the way humans do, organisms grow, consume, and reproduce using the resources and conditions they have available. By contrast, human manufacturing in industrialized nations often relies on high temperatures, inefficient water usage, and materials that are difficult to extract or recycle (such as the rare earth elements essential to electronics). Yet without the ability to drastically alter the temperature or chemistry of their environment the way humans do, organisms grow, consume, and reproduce using the resources they have available."

In the end, biomimicry boils down to creating self replicating automatons. Couple that to a readily available energy source, and you've created artificial life. That's the real achievement that brings us on the same level with the Gods. What you do with it then, and whether you send it to explore and colonize hostile environments, is an entirely secondary and less noble goal.

These discussions are fun, but it's really wasted energy. I've watched three generations of "visionaries" enter this field wide-eyed and excited only to have their dreams crushed by reality. Mars is too far a stretch goal.First, let's develop a "colony" on Antarctica that is self-sustainable. If you can't pull that off on a continent that's already providing 2 of 3 vital resources (oxygen and water) you have no chance of pulling off it on Mars or any other body of this solar system.Enjoy the ride while it lasts, Ariel.

There's no need for a colony on Antarctica to be self-sustaining. We certainly have the technology. Although one thing Antarctica has that no other place in the Solar System this side of Uranus has: six months without sunlight.

Dark side of the moon? Mercury? Or am I missing something?

Edit: or even closer, the north pole?

Okay, I'll give you the north pole. But the lunar night is only two weeks.

Mercury is close. Although it has a 56-day rotation and an 88-day year, the two combine to give it a sunset-sunrise of 176 days -- a week shy of six months. But no twilight (no atmosphere), so I'll give you that one too.

These discussions are fun, but it's really wasted energy. I've watched three generations of "visionaries" enter this field wide-eyed and excited only to have their dreams crushed by reality. Mars is too far a stretch goal.First, let's develop a "colony" on Antarctica that is self-sustainable. If you can't pull that off on a continent that's already providing 2 of 3 vital resources (oxygen and water) you have no chance of pulling off it on Mars or any other body of this solar system.Enjoy the ride while it lasts, Ariel.

There's no need for a colony on Antarctica to be self-sustaining. We certainly have the technology. Although one thing Antarctica has that no other place in the Solar System this side of Uranus has: six months without sunlight.

Dark side of the moon? Mercury? Or am I missing something?

Edit: or even closer, the north pole?

Okay, I'll give you the north pole. But the lunar night is only two weeks.

Mercury is close. Although it has a 56-day rotation and an 88-day year, the two combine to give it a sunset-sunrise of 176 days -- a week shy of six months. But no twilight (no atmosphere), so I'll give you that one too.

What we need to do bio engineer organisms that thrive on Mars (or under subsurface), feed on it's natural resource, and excrete beneficial materials for us Humans to exploit. Of course, no doubt we Humans will also be bio-engineered and altered to best suit a Martian environment.

Come back in a million years - no, say ten thousand years - or then again maybe just a one thousand years. I think Life will be on Mars irrespective of whether it is there now or not.

Life finds a way? I think WE are the way.

I reckon it's only a matter of time now, now that we have reached Mars, albeit so far only by proxy.

One scenario has already been expressed in the movie 'The Martian' when his biosphere blew a gasket. That had to have contaminated that version of Mars. There will be other reasons too, commercial reasons probably. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at Antartica now.

What if one could look at Mars again in a million years from now. What would one find?

I think there could be little evidence left that Mars was once considered to be sterile. Even the slightest error here (in the past or future) or on Mars (in my future) could seed Mars. There is no control over random accident. One may mitigate against it but not prevent it. I wonder if that is how life originated - simply by accident somewhere?

Of course this speculation depends on first someone not destroying one or more of the artificial satellites up there, preventing us making further forays into space due to orbital debris. On the other hand, even that may not be forever. https://www.nap.edu/read/4765/chapter/11

It is mathematically impossible for molecules to perfectly align themselves to create self-spawning life. That is like saying an explosion will create a book in legible sentences, which is even much simpler than life itself. Kind of like how thousands and thousands of "perfect" mistakes to build every single function of life (blood cells, the heart, the brain, how white blood cells replicate and attack - and only foreign bodies, etc etc). I haven't seen any concrete evidence of this in action. Can anyone prove it observably?

Mathematics has nothing to do with it. Molecules perfectly align themselves all the time -- look at crystals. All you need is a particular crystalline arrangement (the tiny mica-like crystals in various clays work just fine) for the organic molecules to line up on, add heat and time, and away you go.

Proteins are made of amino acids and DNA is made of nucleotides, which in turn iare made of nucleobases. We have detected both amino acids and nucleobases in stellar clouds and meteorites, so the building blocks of DNA and proteins are indeed self assembling and quite easy to find.

On, crystals, he didn't compare anything. He said that there are other kinds of structures that self assemble, beyond life as we know it.

Last, do you have any citations about the mathematic impossibility you quoted? Cause I 've never found one.

Come back in a million years - no, say ten thousand years - or then again maybe just a one thousand years. I think Life will be on Mars irrespective of whether it is there now or not.

Life finds a way? I think WE are the way.

I reckon it's only a matter of time now, now that we have reached Mars, albeit so far only by proxy.

One scenario has already been expressed in the movie 'The Martian' when his biosphere blew a gasket. That had to have contaminated that version of Mars. There will be other reasons too, commercial reasons probably. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at Antartica now.

What if one could look at Mars again in a million years from now. What would one find?

I think there could be little evidence left that Mars was once considered to be sterile. Even the slightest error here (in the past or future) or on Mars (in my future) could seed Mars. There is no control over random accident. One may mitigate against it but not prevent it. I wonder if that is how life originated - simply by accident somewhere?

Of course this speculation depends on first someone not destroying one or more of the artificial satellites up there, preventing us making further forays into space due to orbital debris. On the other hand, even that may not be forever. https://www.nap.edu/read/4765/chapter/11

It is mathematically impossible for molecules to perfectly align themselves to create self-spawning life. That is like saying an explosion will create a book in legible sentences, which is even much simpler than life itself. Kind of like how thousands and thousands of "perfect" mistakes to build every single function of life (blood cells, the heart, the brain, how white blood cells replicate and attack - and only foreign bodies, etc etc). I haven't seen any concrete evidence of this in action. Can anyone prove it observably?

Mathematics has nothing to do with it. Molecules perfectly align themselves all the time -- look at crystals. All you need is a particular crystalline arrangement (the tiny mica-like crystals in various clays work just fine) for the organic molecules to line up on, add heat and time, and away you go.

Proteins are made of amino acids and DNA is made of nucleotides, which in turn iare made of nucleobases. We have detected both amino acids and nucleobases in stellar clouds and meteorites, so the building blocks of DNA and proteins are indeed self assembling and quite easy to find.

On, crystals, he didn't compare anything. He said that there are other kinds of structures that self assemble, beyond life as we know it.

Last, do you have any citations about the mathematic impossibility you quoted? Cause I 've never found one.

Uh, I did. You must have failed to notice. I also have a calculator, as I'm sure you do, too. Although mine won't calculate that high.

Come back in a million years - no, say ten thousand years - or then again maybe just a one thousand years. I think Life will be on Mars irrespective of whether it is there now or not.

Life finds a way? I think WE are the way.

I reckon it's only a matter of time now, now that we have reached Mars, albeit so far only by proxy.

One scenario has already been expressed in the movie 'The Martian' when his biosphere blew a gasket. That had to have contaminated that version of Mars. There will be other reasons too, commercial reasons probably. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at Antartica now.

What if one could look at Mars again in a million years from now. What would one find?

I think there could be little evidence left that Mars was once considered to be sterile. Even the slightest error here (in the past or future) or on Mars (in my future) could seed Mars. There is no control over random accident. One may mitigate against it but not prevent it. I wonder if that is how life originated - simply by accident somewhere?

Of course this speculation depends on first someone not destroying one or more of the artificial satellites up there, preventing us making further forays into space due to orbital debris. On the other hand, even that may not be forever. https://www.nap.edu/read/4765/chapter/11

It is mathematically impossible for molecules to perfectly align themselves to create self-spawning life. That is like saying an explosion will create a book in legible sentences, which is even much simpler than life itself. Kind of like how thousands and thousands of "perfect" mistakes to build every single function of life (blood cells, the heart, the brain, how white blood cells replicate and attack - and only foreign bodies, etc etc). I haven't seen any concrete evidence of this in action. Can anyone prove it observably?

Mathematics has nothing to do with it. Molecules perfectly align themselves all the time -- look at crystals. All you need is a particular crystalline arrangement (the tiny mica-like crystals in various clays work just fine) for the organic molecules to line up on, add heat and time, and away you go.

Come back in a million years - no, say ten thousand years - or then again maybe just a one thousand years. I think Life will be on Mars irrespective of whether it is there now or not.

Life finds a way? I think WE are the way.

I reckon it's only a matter of time now, now that we have reached Mars, albeit so far only by proxy.

One scenario has already been expressed in the movie 'The Martian' when his biosphere blew a gasket. That had to have contaminated that version of Mars. There will be other reasons too, commercial reasons probably. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at Antartica now.

What if one could look at Mars again in a million years from now. What would one find?

I think there could be little evidence left that Mars was once considered to be sterile. Even the slightest error here (in the past or future) or on Mars (in my future) could seed Mars. There is no control over random accident. One may mitigate against it but not prevent it. I wonder if that is how life originated - simply by accident somewhere?

Of course this speculation depends on first someone not destroying one or more of the artificial satellites up there, preventing us making further forays into space due to orbital debris. On the other hand, even that may not be forever. https://www.nap.edu/read/4765/chapter/11

It’s way too popular a concept to believe that there was once life on Mars. It’s also too popular to think that living on Mars is practical. As far as it being seeded - with what? Mars is a very harsh environment. If life could exist on Mars, it would be there now.

What we often forget is that the extremophiles had millions of years to adapt from much more friendly environments. Maybe tens of millions. If the environment wasn’t that friendly to begin with, it’s far less likely that life got started at all. By now, it looks that any chance for that is long gone.

I'm thinking about we ourselves spreading our "DNA" or, more likely, any other form of DNA somehow or other to Mars then the possible consequences. Not just now but also in Deep Time, long after our own inevitable demise. If you get my meaning.

Come back in a million years - no, say ten thousand years - or then again maybe just a one thousand years. I think Life will be on Mars irrespective of whether it is there now or not.

Life finds a way? I think WE are the way.

I reckon it's only a matter of time now, now that we have reached Mars, albeit so far only by proxy.

One scenario has already been expressed in the movie 'The Martian' when his biosphere blew a gasket. That had to have contaminated that version of Mars. There will be other reasons too, commercial reasons probably. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at Antartica now.

What if one could look at Mars again in a million years from now. What would one find?

I think there could be little evidence left that Mars was once considered to be sterile. Even the slightest error here (in the past or future) or on Mars (in my future) could seed Mars. There is no control over random accident. One may mitigate against it but not prevent it. I wonder if that is how life originated - simply by accident somewhere?

Of course this speculation depends on first someone not destroying one or more of the artificial satellites up there, preventing us making further forays into space due to orbital debris. On the other hand, even that may not be forever. https://www.nap.edu/read/4765/chapter/11

It’s way too popular a concept to believe that there was once life on Mars. It’s also too popular to think that living on Mars is practical. As far as it being seeded - with what? Mars is a very harsh environment. If life could exist on Mars, it would be there now.

What we often forget is that the extremophiles had millions of years to adapt from much more friendly environments. Maybe tens of millions. If the environment wasn’t that friendly to begin with, it’s far less likely that life got started at all. By now, it looks that any chance for that is long gone.

I'm thinking about we ourselves spreading our planet's "DNA" somehow or other to Mars and thenthe possible consequences. Not just now, but also in Deep Time, long after our own inevitable demise. If you get my meaning.

These discussions are fun, but it's really wasted energy. I've watched three generations of "visionaries" enter this field wide-eyed and excited only to have their dreams crushed by reality. Mars is too far a stretch goal.First, let's develop a "colony" on Antarctica that is self-sustainable. If you can't pull that off on a continent that's already providing 2 of 3 vital resources (oxygen and water) you have no chance of pulling off it on Mars or any other body of this solar system.Enjoy the ride while it lasts, Ariel.

There's no need for a colony on Antarctica to be self-sustaining. We certainly have the technology. Although one thing Antarctica has that no other place in the Solar System this side of Uranus has: six months without sunlight.

I think there could be little evidence left that Mars was once considered to be sterile. Even the slightest error here (in the past or future) or on Mars (in my future) could seed Mars. There is no control over random accident. One may mitigate against it but not prevent it. I wonder if that is how life originated - simply by accident somewhere?

There's degrees of contamination though. Even here on Earth, there are environments that have been isolated for millions of years. Whether by manned landings or imperfectly sterilized probes, human activity on Mars will inevitably contaminate the surface with Earth microbes, but a large scale human presence would also enable us to access isolated environments where Martian life is more likely to survive and which would be protected for substantial amounts of time from surface contamination.

Come back in a million years - no, say ten thousand years - or then again maybe just a one thousand years. I think Life will be on Mars irrespective of whether it is there now or not.

Life finds a way? I think WE are the way.

I reckon it's only a matter of time now, now that we have reached Mars, albeit so far only by proxy.

One scenario has already been expressed in the movie 'The Martian' when his biosphere blew a gasket. That had to have contaminated that version of Mars. There will be other reasons too, commercial reasons probably. Maybe I'm wrong. But look at Antartica now.

What if one could look at Mars again in a million years from now. What would one find?

I think there could be little evidence left that Mars was once considered to be sterile. Even the slightest error here (in the past or future) or on Mars (in my future) could seed Mars. There is no control over random accident. One may mitigate against it but not prevent it. I wonder if that is how life originated - simply by accident somewhere?

Of course this speculation depends on first someone not destroying one or more of the artificial satellites up there, preventing us making further forays into space due to orbital debris. On the other hand, even that may not be forever. https://www.nap.edu/read/4765/chapter/11

It is mathematically impossible for molecules to perfectly align themselves to create self-spawning life. That is like saying an explosion will create a book in legible sentences, which is even much simpler than life itself. Kind of like how thousands and thousands of "perfect" mistakes to build every single function of life (blood cells, the heart, the brain, how white blood cells replicate and attack - and only foreign bodies, etc etc). I haven't seen any concrete evidence of this in action. Can anyone prove it observably?

Mathematics has nothing to do with it. Molecules perfectly align themselves all the time -- look at crystals. All you need is a particular crystalline arrangement (the tiny mica-like crystals in various clays work just fine) for the organic molecules to line up on, add heat and time, and away you go.

Chemistry, not mathematics.

Mathematics has quite a bit to do with it, actually, they're just using the wrong mathematics. The details of how it happened are unclear (though the clays you mention seem like a good candidate for the setting), but nobody thinks the appearance of life was an event where a bunch of molecules randomly came together to form a perfect organism, it was a process involving imperfect autocatalytic reactions competing for survival. The mathematics that describe genetic algorithms likely became relevant before there were genes or cells.